# Navy orders cuts to begin now; thousands fired



## Misfit

Navy orders cuts to begin now; thousands to be fired | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

Navy flag officers and top executives were told Thursday to begin cutting expenses - laying off thousands of temporary civilian workers, reducing base operations and preparing to cancel maintenance work on more than two dozen ships and hundreds of aircraft.


----------



## LuckyMe143

Misfit said:


> Navy orders cuts to begin now; thousands to be fired | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com
> 
> Navy flag officers and top executives were told Thursday to begin cutting expenses - laying off thousands of temporary civilian workers, reducing base operations and preparing to cancel maintenance work on more than two dozen ships and hundreds of aircraft.



My Dad is one to be getting laid off. :/ This happens a lot to him. He lives paycheck to paycheck just like the rest of us.I think after this layoff he won't be able to bounce back. Hope he can set his pride aside and move up here with me. He's old and he can retire.


----------



## Cheeky1

Misfit said:


> Navy orders cuts to begin now; thousands to be fired | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com
> 
> Navy flag officers and top executives were told Thursday to begin cutting expenses - laying off thousands of temporary civilian workers, reducing base operations and preparing to cancel maintenance work on more than two dozen ships and hundreds of aircraft.



Of course, they won't be cutting themselves, the top makes excessive amounts of 'doh'....


----------



## bcp

but the welfare crowd and the filthy illegals still get their free stuff right?

 thats really all I care about, making sure the non productive live better than the working class.


----------



## b23hqb

We can only hope that most, if not all, of these laid off workers voted (D) last year, but they still will not learn.

"The cutbacks are in response to Congress' continuing to fund the Navy at the 2012 budget level, rather than providing what the service was expecting for 2013. *Unable to agree on an annual budget*, Congress approved a continuing resolution to keep the government operating at 2012 budget levels until March 27."

The House (R) agreed on a budget. The Senate (D) has not even presented one in four years.

Who's holding things up here, Harry?


----------



## awpitt

b23hqb said:


> The House (R) agreed on a budget. The Senate (D) has not even presented one in four years.
> 
> Who's holding things up here, Harry?


 
That's not how it works.  The House (R) and the Senate (D) *both* have to agree on a budget and send it to the POTUS for signature or veto.


----------



## perfectorec

b23hqb said:


> We can only hope that most, if not all, of these laid off workers voted (D) last year, but they still will not learn.
> 
> "The cutbacks are in response to Congress' continuing to fund the Navy at the 2012 budget level, rather than providing what the service was expecting for 2013. *Unable to agree on an annual budget*, Congress approved a continuing resolution to keep the government operating at 2012 budget levels until March 27."
> 
> The House (R) agreed on a budget. The Senate (D) has not even presented one in four years.
> 
> Who's holding things up here, Harry?



Yea because we all know spending 60% of the world's defense budget is sustainable. I swear I wonder how some of you people made it this far in life.


----------



## perfectorec

bcp said:


> but the welfare crowd and the filthy illegals still get their free stuff right?
> 
> thats really all I care about, making sure the non productive live better than the working class.



What did all you knuckleheads tell the rest of us suffering through the Bush dictatorship? Love or Leave it! Crybaby.


----------



## abcxyz

It is a shame the current administration would rather cut defense spending than welfare spending. I'm a fan of cutting both but that is another ball of wax. Navy going to have to run a tighter ship!


----------



## Gilligan

perfectorec said:


> Yea because we all know spending 60% of the world's defense budget is sustainable. I swear I wonder how some of you people made it this far in life.



Since defense spending as a percentage of GDP and of the budget as a whole has remained fairly constant or even declined in recent times, what makes today so different that now its no longer "sustainable"?   In your esteemed opinion.


----------



## Gilligan

perfectorec said:


> What did all you knuckleheads tell the rest of us suffering through the Bush dictatorship? Love or Leave it! Crybaby.



You have a true gift for the rhetorical flourish..


----------



## Gilligan

Read a copy of CNO's direction today that spelled out, for the DoD civilian population, the potential number of furlough days they are facing (22) and perhaps even an actual RIF of 10% farther in to the year. Edit oops: The 10% workforce reduction was floated from a  different source (which I'll have to find again); only the 22 furlough days is in CNO's letter. 


Never heard any more about SecNav's earlier intitiative. 

Navy Replaces All Sailors With Overpaid Contractors To Cut Costs | The Duffel Blog


----------



## bcp

perfectorec said:


> What did all you knuckleheads tell the rest of us suffering through the Bush dictatorship? Love or Leave it! Crybaby.



Funny, I recall the financial problems starting after the communists took over the congress.
 Im thinking the dems pretty much own this one. They are after all the entitlement party.

 As far as the budget problems, 
1) Bill Clinton is the one that set the housing bubble into play. Bush and the republican party are at fault for not correcting it when they saw it coming.
2) the wars were expensive and racked up a huge deficit, however, end the war, end the cost. Can the same be said about the current silly bastards health care rape? or, is that something that is going to get out of hand and cause millions of currently insured Americans to lose coverage.


----------



## aps45819

awpitt said:


> That's not how it works.  The House (R) and the Senate (D) *both* have to agree on a budget and send it to the POTUS for signature or veto.



and only congress has passed a budget
...every year


----------



## Vince

b23hqb said:


> We can only hope that most, if not all, of these laid off workers voted (D) last year, but they still will not learn.
> 
> "The cutbacks are in response to Congress' continuing to fund the Navy at the 2012 budget level, rather than providing what the service was expecting for 2013. *Unable to agree on an annual budget*, Congress approved a continuing resolution to keep the government operating at 2012 budget levels until March 27."
> 
> The House (R) agreed on a budget. *The Senate (D) has not even presented one in four years.*Who's holding things up here, Harry?


Navy personnel get fired, civilian workers laid off, gov't workers will be furloughed.....etc.  Why isn't there a clause in the system allowing us to fire Congress when they fail?  Fire the president because he's already a failure.  Oh, wait, it's called voting and the stupid Dems put all these people there that can't do their job.


----------



## awpitt

aps45819 said:


> and only congress has passed a budget
> ...every year


 
...and that means nothing until both Houses of Congress agree with each other (via conf committee) and send that legislation to the President for signature or veto. There are hundreds of bills that get passed by one or the other of the two Houses of Congress that go no where because the two Houses of Congress can't agree on a final bill.


----------



## aps45819

awpitt said:


> ...and that means nothing until both Houses of Congress agree with each other (via conf committee) and send that legislation to the President for signature or veto. There are hundreds of bills that get passed by one or the other of the two Houses of Congress that go no where because the two Houses of Congress can't agree on a final bill.



It's not about agreeing

The Senate refuses to do it's job and produce a budget


----------



## awpitt

aps45819 said:


> *It's not about agreeing*
> 
> The Senate refuses to do it's job and produce a budget


 
Actually, it is about agreeing. The Senate could produce a budget and we'd still be right where we are because the two budets would be different. The bottom line is that the House of Reps and the Senate have to agree on final legislation before it can be sent to the Pesident.


----------



## bulldog

awpitt said:


> Actually, it is about agreeing. The Senate could produce a budget and we'd still be right where we are because the two budets would be different. The bottom line is that the House of Reps and the Senate have to agree on final legislation before it can be sent to the Pesident.



Yes, but, until the Senate produces a budget to be considered...they have failed. At least if they presented one, it could be studied and some agreements made...maybe. Maybe not.


----------



## SG_Player1974

Hey... Look at it this way...

If you get laid off, you will be able to get free health care AND collect unemployment for how many *YEARS* now??


----------



## edinsomd

awpitt said:


> Actually, it is about agreeing. The Senate could produce a budget and we'd still be right where we are because the two budets would be different. The bottom line is that the House of Reps and the Senate have to agree on final legislation before it can be sent to the Pesident.



And it's the job of the President to provide guidence and leadership over both Houses to come to an agreement.

How's that working out so far?


----------



## aps45819

awpitt said:


> Actually, it is about agreeing. The Senate could produce a budget and we'd still be right where we are because the two budets would be different. The bottom line is that the House of Reps and the Senate have to agree on final legislation before it can be sent to the Pesident.



That's pure speculation because the senate refuses to produce a budget.

The bottom line is if only one house does it's job there is nothing to agree on.

It's the sound of one hand clapping


----------



## struggler44

aps45819 said:


> That's pure speculation because the senate refuses to produce a budget.
> 
> The bottom line is if only one house does it's job there is nothing to agree on.
> 
> It's the sound of one hand clapping



I thought the Senate members produced budgets but the douche bag Reid refuses to bring them to the floor for a vote; I personally will be happy when the crinkled skin F'er croaks............


----------



## DEEKAYPEE8569

*Anybody Hear Tell Of 32 Hour Weeks In The Works?*

I just happened to overhear something along that line; that the P.T.B. are working on instituting 4-day weeks. 
Hmmm.....Tues-Fri on non-payday weeks; Mon-Thurs on payday weeks.
But it's still a 16 hour per payday pay cut for those of us that work 8/5/40.


----------



## Beta84

DEEKAYPEE8569 said:


> I just happened to overhear something along that line; that the P.T.B. are working on instituting 4-day weeks.
> Hmmm.....Tues-Fri on non-payday weeks; Mon-Thurs on payday weeks.
> But it's still a 16 hour per payday pay cut for those of us that work 8/5/40.



See the comments above about 22 days of furlough.  1 day a week from mid-April through end of September makes up those 22 days.  That probably matches up with what you heard.  I'm sure each group can decide whether they want to do Tues-Fri, Mon-Thurs, or take off every Wednesday to make up for it.  :shrug:

Regardless, that's far from being a done deal.


----------



## DEEKAYPEE8569

Beta84 said:


> See the comments above about 22 days of furlough.  1 day a week from mid-April through end of September makes up those 22 days.  That probably matches up with what you heard.  I'm sure each group can decide whether they want to do Tues-Fri, Mon-Thurs, or take off every Wednesday to make up for it.  :shrug:
> 
> Regardless, that's far from being a done deal.



I guess I'll know something when the Director passes the word. :shrug:


----------



## BernieP

b23hqb said:


> We can only hope that most, if not all, of these laid off workers voted (D) last year, but they still will not learn.
> 
> "The cutbacks are in response to Congress' continuing to fund the Navy at the 2012 budget level, rather than providing what the service was expecting for 2013. *Unable to agree on an annual budget*, Congress approved a continuing resolution to keep the government operating at 2012 budget levels until March 27."
> 
> The House (R) agreed on a budget. The Senate (D) has not even presented one in four years.
> 
> Who's holding things up here, Harry?


Please don't let poopypants reid that


----------



## itsbob

awpitt said:


> ...and that means nothing until both Houses of Congress agree with each other (via conf committee) and send that legislation to the President for signature or veto. There are hundreds of bills that get passed by one or the other of the two Houses of Congress that go no where because the two Houses of Congress can't agree on a final bill.



What do we need to do to force a recall?


----------



## b23hqb

struggler44 said:


> I thought the Senate members produced budgets but the douche bag Reid refuses to bring them to the floor for a vote; I personally will be happy when the crinkled skin F'er croaks............



Therefore, the Senate, and their wonderful leader, has continued to not produce a budget, no matter what the (D) side says. Until something is sent to the House for consideration and debate, the Senate has done nothing on the issue.

The lack of a budget for the past four years falls directly on Reid. No one else, unless you add his big daddy in the WH, that is.


----------



## BernieP

aps45819 said:


> That's pure speculation because the senate refuses to produce a budget.
> 
> The bottom line is if only one house does it's job there is nothing to agree on.
> 
> It's the sound of one hand clapping



one person has been holding up a Senate vote, the lord of the senate himself, Harry (SEIU) Reid.   You can blame the democrats in the Senate only in that they made that crack pot crook the grand potentate of the senate.
Oh, and where are the two fearless pinkos focusing the attention of congress - GUN CONTROL.  Yep, let's forget about the budget, forget about the economy, but let's strike the 2nd Amendment while emotions run high.

BTW, one of the problems the senators were complaining about is that Obama doesn't want to talk about spending, he wants to talk about revenue.

So, let's increase taxes and cut spending in an ecomomy that can be generously be defined as being in a recession.  In other words, let's just push it over the edge and get a full blown depression.  Then the pipples will be ready for a true socialist state, then Obama can get those changes to the constitution that allows the federal government to "do more" for us.


----------



## Gilligan

BernieP said:


> BTW, one of the problems the senators were complaining about is that Obama doesn't want to talk about spending, he wants to talk about revenue.




Queen Nancy made it quite clear, on Chris Wallace's show Sunday, that there is no spending problem and "lots of cuts" have already been made. There simply isn't room nor place to make any more cuts.


----------



## awpitt

itsbob said:


> What do we need to do to force a recall?


 
Ammend the Constitution.


----------



## RJO

itsbob said:


> What do we need to do to force a recall?



From what I looked up the state of Maryland does not allow recalls of Senators or Representatives.


----------



## BernieP

Gilligan said:


> Queen Nancy made it quite clear, on Chris Wallace's show Sunday, that there is no spending problem and "lots of cuts" have already been made. There simply isn't room nor place to make any more cuts.



There is a lot of hypocry within our leaders, and I include the military leaders.
Lots of politics and the people that will be hurt will be a large number of US civilians.

The incoming Treasury Secretary has pleaded with congress to not make drastic cuts because it would topple a weak economy.  Silent Steny Hoyer has to know what sequestration will do to the tri-county area, particularly St. Marys.  But these same assclowns that authored the bill and signed it into law.  Of course the same idiots authored and signed the healthcare bill and to this date nobody seems to know exactly what that bill does either.


----------



## cheezgrits

BernieP said:


> There is a lot of hypocry within our leaders, and I include the military leaders.
> Lots of politics and the people that will be hurt will be a large number of US civilians.
> 
> The incoming Treasury Secretary has pleaded with congress to not make drastic cuts because it would topple a weak economy.  *Silent Steny Hoyer has to know what sequestration will do to the tri-county area, particularly St. Marys.*  But these same assclowns that authored the bill and signed it into law.  Of course the same idiots authored and signed the healthcare bill and to this date nobody seems to know exactly what that bill does either.



And yet, he keeps getting elected...


----------



## aps45819

cheezgrits said:


> And yet, he keeps getting elected...



Google "lbj quote on voting democrat for 200 years" and find out what he said about passing his great society legislation


----------



## bcp

cheezgrits said:


> And yet, he keeps getting elected...



Did St Marys county go for Steny in the last election? 
 If not, he might be looking at payback, all he is worried about is Charles and PG


----------



## DEEKAYPEE8569

bcp said:


> Did St Marys county go for Steny in the last election?
> If not, he might be looking at payback, all he is worried about is Charles and PG



If Steny is still believed to be PAX River's 'savior,' he will be voted in again.


----------



## awpitt

bcp said:


> Did St Marys county go for Steny in the last election?


 
Yes.


----------



## soundoff

I cant wait for the cuts....it has taken way too long to get this started in my opinion.

ManTech and Steny Hoyer Dance the Military Contract Tango | Irregular Times

Hoyer opposes Obama order on contractor donations - On Congress - POLITICO.com


----------



## cheezgrits

Can't wait for the cuts? Really? So apparently this will have no impact on you whatsoever.

you realize the cuts they are talking about are local salaries and jobs, right?

And the "cuts" it will produce account for 1% of what's needed?


----------



## thurley42

cheezgrits said:


> Can't wait for the cuts? Really? So apparently this will have no impact on you whatsoever.
> 
> you realize the cuts they are talking about are local salaries and jobs, right?
> 
> And the "cuts" it will produce account for 1% of what's needed?



Probably a jealous idiot.


----------



## abcxyz

Bring on the cuts!! If the only way we can get cuts to happen is by doing them this way, then so be it, it is better than no cuts at all. I'd like to see this done every 6 months until Congress passes a budget.


----------



## b23hqb

abcxyz said:


> Bring on the cuts!! If the only way we can get cuts to happen is by doing them this way, then so be it, it is better than no cuts at all. I'd like to see this done every 6 months until Congress passes a budget.



It is hard on those being cut, for sure, but it is a long-needed reality. Tough reality, that have been expected by individual notices/warnings given to employees/contractors last October before the election...

Oh, wait! Those notices/warnings were not sent out due to pressure from the White House because of the upcoming election .......

White House Discouraging Layoff Warnings In Days Before Election

"*The Obama administration has sought to quell the fear of mass defense layoffs in presidential battlegrounds like Virginia, where letters sent in early November warning about the possibility of job losses could discourage thousands of defense workers from backing the incumbent."*

Contractors told to hold off on layoff warnings due to fiscal cliff spending cuts - Sep. 28, 2012

Nothing political about that, for sure.


----------



## vince77

everybody wants cuts............as long as they're not effected


----------



## thurley42

vince77 said:


> everybody wants cuts............as long as they're not effected



But let's go ahead and take away from the employeed tax payers and not the ones sucking the teat and raising costs.


----------



## aps45819

abcxyz said:


> Bring on the cuts!! If the only way we can get cuts to happen is by doing them this way, then so be it, it is better than no cuts at all. I'd like to see this done every 6 months until Congress passes a budget.



They're not actually cutting anything, jut increasing spending by a lesser amount. If the funding was there last year it's still there.

So you have to wonder what they're actually spending the money on. We know it's not the space program.
Must be Obamacare


----------



## BOP

vince77 said:


> everybody wants cuts............as long as they're not effected



Affected, numbnuts.


----------



## BOP

awpitt said:


> That's not how it works.  The House (R) and the Senate (D) *both* have to agree on a budget and send it to the POTUS for signature or veto.



You're being disingenuous.


----------



## BOP

perfectorec said:


> What did all you knuckleheads tell the rest of us suffering through the Bush dictatorship? Love or Leave it! Crybaby.



And yet, here you still are, doing your best to screw this once-great country.


----------



## BOP

abcxyz said:


> It is a shame the current administration would rather cut defense spending than welfare spending. I'm a fan of cutting both but that is another ball of wax. Navy going to have to run a tighter ship!



You mean like the battle group that can't afford to deploy, the carrier that can't go into dry dock for overhaul, or the carrier that can't afford to steam out of dry dock?  A tighter ship like that?


----------



## vince77

the military is full of waste, just like the rest of the government, this is long overdue....


----------



## abcxyz

BOP said:


> You mean like the battle group that can't afford to deploy, the carrier that can't go into dry dock for overhaul, or the carrier that can't afford to steam out of dry dock?  A tighter ship like that?



I'd mothball most of the fleet and use bombers with as much fire power as need to neutralize the threat. The Province formally known as Baghdad would have been renamed Bombed-Dad under my watch. Countries that don't want us to have bases there and/or use their air space; no check for you!


----------



## DoWhat

abcxyz said:


> Countries that don't want us to have bases there and/or use their air space; no check for you!



I agree with that.


----------

